 |
‘DIALEKTICA SHEL GOYIM’ and ‘LIMMUD SHEL NITZACHON’ –
Sefer Chasidim:
INTRODUCTION:
Those who have studied Gemara would know that Tosafot
is arguably the most complex and challenging section of Talmudic commentary.
There is an intense to and fro of technical questions, answers and compromises
to difficult hypotheses – all this in an argumentative style known as
dialectics. These legal and theoretical dialectics are almost mathematically
precise in their structure.
We know the names of 44 Baalei haTosafot. But we do
not actually know how the Tosafist literature printed in our standard
Talmudic versions (known as Tosafot shelanu) came to be selected. The
determining factor may well have been as random as the price and availability
of manuscripts.[1]
This dialectic form of crisp analysis, as practised by the Tosafist
rabbis of northern France and Germany, became the hallmark of Tosafist literature.
The Tosafist period
was spawned by Rashi (1040-1105) and continued for over two hundred years ending
with R. Meir of Rothenburg (d. 1293).
Being such an integral component of Talmud study, it comes
as a surprise that this very ‘Talmudic’ style of learning appears to
have some of its origins in the non-Jewish cultural milieu within the same time
period as the Tosafists, and also within the same geographical area. In
fact, there is research which shows that the characteristically Tosafist technique of dialectical argumentation may have its stylistic roots in the
French cathedral schools of that period!
Contemporaneous rabbinical literature refers to the
dialectics of the Tosafists as ‘dialektica shel goyim’- the dialectics
of the gentiles.
I have drawn from Rabbi Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel from
Yeshiva University who (besides having a passion for trains) is regarded as one
of the
foremost experts in the field of rabbinic literature and medieval Jewish
history, particularly the Tosafist period.[2]
CULTURAL INTERCHANGE:
To be clear from the outset, Kanarfogel writes:
“That Jews learned dialectic in a formal way from the Christians is rather doubtful.
Even if there were Talmudists who could read Latin to a significant degree—which
does not appear to have been the case—there is scant evidence that mainstream
Talmudic scholars were actually familiar with the texts of any Christian works
of theology or jurisprudence that employed the dialectical method.”
However,
Jewish and Christian scholars did interact on various personal levels and did
hold discussions in the vernacular about matters of mutual interest. Rashi’s
grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, for example, had open and frank dialogues with the
Count of Champagne.[3]
Many
scholars hold the view that the Tosafists adopted similar dialectical techniques
and argumentative methodologies to those prevailing within the Christian community
with whom they engaged in discussion and conversation.[4]
According to
Kanarfogel, there was sufficient interaction for a two-way exchange to
effectively take place. In the course of direct conversation and without necessarily
recourse to each other’s texts, Jews taught Christians a form of biblical study
based on an interpretation of the Torah, known as peshat (similar in
style to Rashi’s commentary) – while Christians influenced the Tosafists
in the area of dialectics. These dialectics would have resonated with the Tosafists
who would have already been familiar with a similar but less intense form of
Talmudic debate and analysis from the earlier Talmudic period.
Kanarfogel
writes:
“Indeed, if a circle
with a radius of eighty miles or so is drawn around the leading cathedral
schools in northern France during the twelfth century (such as Laon, Chartres,
Orleans and Paris), the most important Tosafist study halls in northern France
can also be found within the limits of that circle.”
THE ‘SHOULDERS OF GIANTS’ PARABLE:
The Italian Tosafist
Yeshaya di Trani (d. 1240) also known as Rid, speaks of a parable which
he heard from, what he calls, ‘the philosophers’ about ‘a dwarf
standing on the shoulders of giants’. Although the dwarf is shorter than
the giant, he can see further than the giant by standing on his shoulders.
He uses this
analogy to show that all of the qualified Halachic decisors of his day,
including himself, can sometimes rule against the decisions of the earlier
rabbis, although the latter were men of far greater stature.[5]
This approach was adopted by many other Tosafists as well.[6]
Although
obviously, no one has exclusive rights to analogies, it is quite telling that
this analogy was first used by Bernard of Chartres[7]
(d. 1126) who was a monk and also the chancellor of the cathedral school of
Chartres. He used the analogy to show that philosophers in his day could argue
with the views of the founding fathers of philosophy and religion.[8]
R. Yeshaya
di Trani’s student, Tzidkiya ben Avraham haRofe min haAnavim, writes in
his Shibbolei haLeket that this parable originated with non-Jews.[9]
This is one
example of a Tosafist acknowledging influence and borrowing from the
surrounding culture.
THE MOVE TO DIALECTICS IN THE NON-JEWISH WORLD:
Kanarfogel
describes how the shift towards dialectics within the non-Jewish world began
within the monastic circles of France and Germany:
“Learned monks
assimilated vast amounts of Scripture and its interpretation, as well as Church
law and other bodies of knowledge, through their constant and repetitive patterns
of reading and review. The monasteries encouraged the study of cannon law as it
existed (and even advocated its memorization), without attempting to reconcile
seeming contradictions or other textual problems that appeared throughout the
corpus. The goal or aim of monastic study was simply to soak up or gather as
much material as was to be found, in the broadest possible way.”
Then, at the
end of the 10th century, the cathedral schools began to compete with
the monasteries for students. A century or so later, the cathedral schools had
won their position of dominance within the educational system of the church.
The
cathedral schools achieved their victory because of two successful strategies:
Firstly they
changed their focus from a traditional to a more contemporary perspective: The
earlier monastic schools were situated at traditional and historically
evocative locations - whereas the newer cathedral schools appointed charismatic
teachers with specific and individualized styles of education. The students
were more attracted to the Teacher than to the Location.
Secondly,
although still studying the traditional texts, they sought to clarify them and
even rectify those that contradicted others. They did this by developing sharp
dialectical skills. The student no longer just read or recited
the text, but he boldly debated and analysed the text.
This
scholastic dialectic became the hallmark of the cathedral schools as evidenced
by various works emerging at that time. This ‘revolution’ in teaching was
taking place in northern France around the time of the birth of Rashi in Troyes[10]
in Champagne, northern France in 1040.
Kanarfogel
cites David Knowles who shows that the 11th century Christian
canonist, Gratian[11]
who authored the Decretum Gratiani “composed an overarching collection...to the
dialectical approach...”
I noticed
that Gratian’s work is also described as being “presented in
the form of a treatise designed to harmonize all the contradictions and
inconsistencies existing in the rules accumulated from diverse sources.”[12]
These could
just as easily describe the methodology of Tosafist literature which was
beginning to flourish from that same time as well.
Kanarfogel describes
the parallel technique and style of the emerging Tosafist literature as
follows:
“Their steady and
extensive use of the [dialectical][13]method...as a means of inquiring from and about the texts
of the Talmud which then allowed them to suggestively interpret these texts and
to issue definitive halakhic conclusions helped the Tosafists to establish
their own renaissance, which led to a sea change in the study of Talmud and
Jewish law.”
DIALECTICS VS TRADITIONAL STUDY:
The
popularity of dialectical study within the cathedral schools was not without
controversy which came from the traditionalists who wanted to go back to the
old monastic system of textual study as opposed to textual analysis.
One
outspoken critic of the new dialectical system was Bishop Stephen of Tournai[14]
around the mid-1100s, who wrote:
“Students applaud
nothing but novelties, and the masters are more intent on glory than doctrine.
Everywhere they draw up new and modern summaries and supporting
commentaries on theology
with which they lull and deceive their listeners as if the works of the sacred
fathers did not still suffice.”[15]
These new
dialectical cathedral schools were thriving with students, who according to one
description were:
“...teeming with
cavalier students, whose breasts swell with pride in their knowledge, who can
dispute, cast doubt, redefine old usage...and have the nerve to contradict and
show up their own teachers.”[16]
Interestingly
this is also, to some extent, a criticism to this very day levelled against
those students of the Tosafist (and pilpul) style who pride themselves
predominantly on their dialectical acumen.
In some
extreme cases, the Tosafists even suggest that a Talmudic sage (known as
an Amora) was mistaken. This has led some to believe that the term Tosafot
does not just mean a gloss or commentary on the Talmud, but rather indicates
the ability to sometimes expand (Tosafot literally means ‘expansions’)
on the Talmud itself.[17]
Bernard of
Chartres, being a mystic[18],
was very much opposed to the dialectical method of study which was so popular
in the cathedral schools and he tried to get students back to the monasteries. Expressing his disdain for dialectics which
he called ‘Babylon,’ he wrote rather tellingly:
“Flee from the midst of
this Babylon and save your souls; fly to the cities of refuge [i.e., the
monasteries]. You will find much more in the forests than in the books, and the
rocks will teach you more than any master.”[19]
THE PARALLEL MOVE TO DIALECTICS IN THE JEWISH WORLD:
The
parallels between what had transpired in the Christian world and what was to
take place about a century later in the Jewish world are staggering.
Until around
the time of the First Crusade (1095-1099) the aim of Torah scholarship was
primarily about acquiring as much knowledge of the Talmudic texts as possible.
There was little focus on reconciling difficult texts. This can be seen in the typical Halachic
works of the time such as Ma’aseh haGaonim and even with Rashi’s general
commentaries on the Torah and Talmud. There was no intense interest in pursuing
a dialectical approach to Torah study. This very much corresponded -obviously in
style, not in content - to what was taking place in the monastic schools at
that time.
FROM NAMES OF PLACES TO NAMES OF TEACHERS:
Following
the same pattern as the shift from monastic to cathedral schools, in the past,
the Jewish academies of learning were mainly named after their geographical
location. With the advent of the Tosafist ‘renaissance’ that all began
to change and students started to coalesce around the personality of the teacher,
rather than around the ethos of a place of learning. The hallowed halls of
study were replaced by hallowed personalities.
The reason
for this paradigm shift in approach to learning had to do with the new method
of study - namely dialectics. Each teacher had a nuanced style of teaching
dialectics and this determined which student would go to which teacher. Of
course, this would also have occurred in previous generations as well, but not
to the extent that it did during the Tosafist period.
In earlier
times (in Ashkenaz – i.e., northern France and Germany), the main Torah
academies were situated in Mainz and Worms, which were identified by their location
and not by their teachers.
An example
of this can be seen in some of the responsa literature[20],
where questions were sent to the Yeshiva of Mainz and simply addressed to the
unnamed ‘scholars of the city.’ This, despite the fact that great and
leading rabbinic figures like Rabbeinu Gershom (960-1040) were being addressed. The majesty of the locale overshadowed
the personalities of its leaders.[21]
However, towards
the middle of the 1100s the status quo began to change with the emergence of
the Tosafists, and suddenly the teacher became the centre of
attraction over the customs and traditions of the venerated location.
Some Spanish
scholars were amazed to see how students in Tosafist academies regarded
their teachers as peers, and sometimes even emerged victorious over them.[22]
Kanarfogel
describes the change of emphasis from locale to teacher as
follows:
“In the Tosafist
period, a city or town had an important, high-level academy
only when a particular
Tosafist or other rabbinic scholar was there. Students
wandered from the study
hall of one leading scholar to the study hall of another,
and the rabbinic
scholars themselves occasionally changed locales. Thus, for
example, we hear nothing
about the academy or study hall in Ramerupt or
Troyes once Rabbenu Tam
had departed...
Moreover, the Talmudic
comments that were produced in the academies of the Tosafists were referred to
as the commentary of Rabbenu Tam or the Tosafot of Ri.”
And,
significantly, these changes took place within the Tosafist community a
generation or so after they occurred within the cathedral schools, which tend
to show some form of stylistic influence.
JEWISH OPPOSITION TO TOSAFIST DIALECTICS:
Just like
some of the Christian mystics opposed the shift to more cerebral dialectics,
the Jewish mystics of Chasidei Ashkenaz also spoke out with disdain
against the dialectical style of the Tosafists.
The Sefer
Chassidim of Chasidei Ashkenaz “clearly recognized the
dialectical method that was prevalent within Christian learning”.
Sefer Chassidim discouraged
the use of pilpul, another form of dialectic study. After the section
discouraging students from becoming involved with ‘dialektica shel goyim’,
or dialectics of the gentile nations,[23]Sefer
Chassidim speaks against any style of learning that involves a one-up-mans-ship
or ‘limmud shel nitzachon’, where the study produces a ‘winner.’
The Chasidei
Ashkenaz were evidently aware of the emerging influence on the Tosafists,
which emanated from a dialectical form of study which was practised in the cathedral
schools, where teaching often took the combative form of a disputation.
(On the
other hand, there was one aspect of the church that Chassidei Ashkenaz
felt worthy of emulation and that was decorum during services which seemed to
be lacking from the Jewish prayer services.[24])
NOT ‘AIRTIGHT’ BUT COMPELLING:
Kanarfogel
acknowledges that this research is not yet fully ‘airtight’:
“If we had from an
earlier period additional explicit texts like the passage in Sefer Hasidim, which
clearly points to Jewish awareness of Christian dialectic and its methods, our
case would be airtight.”
Nevertheless,
the remarkable similarities in dialectical methodology; the coinciding moves
from locale to teacher; and the parallel shifts from textual study
to textual analysis - all of which were taking place almost
simultaneously between the two communities living and interacting in such close
proximity - are very compelling.
AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE:
There is,
however, an alternative and more ‘traditional’ narrative to Kanarfogel’s model of
the emergence of Tosafist dialectical methodology.
In this
account, there is no need to resort to any cultural parallels between Tosafists
and cathedral schools:
As a result
of Disputation of Paris in 1240, the
church burned twenty-four carriage loads containing 12,000 Hebrew manuscripts, in
a public square in Paris.[25]
A certain
Nicholas Donin, a disenchanted Jewish scholar who had converted to Christianity,
translated various controversial Talmudic texts into French and invoked the ire
of the church against the Jews. These translations caused Christians to rethink
their perceptions of the Jews. The church was now determined to eradicate any
vestige of the Talmud forever.
The Tosafists
got together and devised a plan to quickly memorise sections of the Talmud.
Experts were appointed, each to master a particular section, and thus save the
Talmud from being lost to history. Each Tosafist repeated the section of
his specialization to his colleague who in turn repeated his section from
another volume and the resulting difficulties and contradictions were discussed
and debated. This comparison of disputed texts resulted in the dialectics of
the Baalei haTosafot as we have them today.
While this
is a very moving and fascinating account, the fact remains that this event took
place less than fifty years before the end of the Tosafist period which
concluded with the passing of R. Meir of Rothenburg in 1293 who apparently
witnessed the burning of the books. Considering that the Tosafist period
began with Rashi in 1040, this means that there were still about two hundred
years of earlier Tosafist activity, before the burning took place.
This
narrative, unfortunately, does not account for the earlier very active two
hundred-year period during which time the dialectical method of Tosafist
study was already clearly well documented and established.
CONCLUSION:
The question
as to what extent Jewish movements, in general, are influenced by the environment
in which they find themselves will probably never be conclusively and fully resolved.
This is because the issues at stake are too high for objective analysis. There
will always be those who believe that Jews were consistently living in islands
of time and space, never venturing outside of their four cubits, and oblivious
of and impervious to the cultural trends surrounding them – and then there will
be those who study history who believe that that perception was rarely, if
ever, the case.
The Reader
may be interested to see two other areas of Jewish thought where the matter of
influence is also discussed; See Babylonian Influences on the Babylonian Talmud and Chassidism: a Reaction to – or Product of – Modernity?
and Chovot
haLevavot – A Sufi Connection?
For more on Chasidei
Ashkenaz and the Tosafists, see:
[1]
This is why the Tosafot which are
printed as separate entities are often longer and more comprehensive than the
standard versions in the Gemara. See Dr Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Tosafist Oeuvre
and Torah u-Madda.
[2]
Ashkenazic Talmudic Interpretation and The Jewish–Christian Encounter, by Ephraim Kanarfogel.
[3]
Tosafot ha-Shalem, ed. J. Gellis (Jerusalem MifÊ¿al Tosafot ha-shalem, 1982‒), 1:178, sec. 8.
[4]
Eleazar Touitou, Exegesis in Perpetual Motion, and Sara Kamin, Jews; and
Christians Interpret the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 13‒6; and Michael Signer, “King/Messiah in Rashi’s Exegesis of
Psalms 2,” Prooftexts 3 (1983): 273‒278.
[5]
Teshuvot ha-Rid le-Rabbenu Yeshayah di-Trani ha-Zaken, responsum 62.
[6]
Such as Rabbeinu Yitzchak, the Ri of Dampierre, his student R. Shimshon of
Sens, and the brothers of Evreux.
[8] “We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so
that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue
of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because
we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.” (Most of
his teachings were recorded by John of Salisbury,
see The Metalogicon (1159) bk. 3, ch. 4).
[9]
Introduction to Shibbolei haLeket.
[11]
Although born in Italy, Karnafogel believes
Gratian “studied theological dialectic with Abelard in northern France, or
was at least familiar with his works.” Peter Abelard (d. 1142) wrote the Sic
et Non (Yes and No) and was a master of dialectics.
[12]
Encyclopaedia Britannica. See under Gratian.
[13]
Parenthesis mine.
[15] Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society, 310‒311,
[16] Jaeger, The Envy of Angels, 217,
[17]
Dr Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Tosafist Oeuvre and Torah u-Madda.
[18]
Although he was also the chancellor of a cathedral school.
[19] J. Le Goff, Intellectuals
in the Middle Ages, 21‒22.
[20]
That is, the written questions and answers (sheilot uteshuvot) of a Halachik
nature.
[21]
It’s interesting to note that Rabbeinu Gershom passed away in the same year as
Rashi was born – around the time when the shift from locale to teacher
was beginning to take place.
[22]
Dr Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Tosafist Oeuvre and Torah u-Madda.
[23] Haym Soloveitchik, “Three Themes in the Sefer Ḥasidim.”
[24]
Moshe Hallamish, “Siḥat Ḥullin be-Beit
ha-Knesset: 226‒227.
[25]
The actual burning took place two years later in 1242.
